I have often read or heard this axiom regarding Paticca Samuppada, "a cause never gives rise to just a single effect, nor do effects ever arise from just one single cause." I can't seem to find a Sutta withfcthe Blessed One saying this. Anyone know for sure if He actually said this?

Greetings Andrew,I can't help you with a reference within the Tipitaka but I do remember reading it in the chapter on dependent origination in the Vism. There may also be a footnote to it linking it to a sutta. Unfortunately I don't have the proximity to my copy nor time to investigate.kind regards,

Ben

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.

I don't recall any suttas that say this, but I too have heard this axiom.... interesting question!

The closest I can think of in a sutta context is that nama-rupa and vinnana are said to be conditions for each other, whereas in the usual explanation, nama-rupa is the condition for salayatana. You could argue that's one cause giving rise to two effects.

In the suttas, it is also said that avijja is the cause of avijja, whereas standard dependent origination sequence also has sankhara dependent upon avijja.

Metta,Retro.

If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding: Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)

Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7

(Note that kamma is only one of the levels of cause and effect and does not explain everything.)

There are many causes and effects listed in the Tipitaka, especially the Abhidhamma, which I think implies no singular effects, which by the way is compatible with modern psychology and the social sciences with their use of examining multiple causes and effects, probability, factor analysis, and spurious relationships.

Thank you all for the quick replies. Ben's pointer to the Visuddhimagga was bang on. Vism. XVII:105'ish I think it was, although the only canonical reference seems to have come from the Patisambhidamagga.

Just to clarify, I take no real issue with this axiom, I was merely trying to establish whether it came right from the Blessed One.

Thank you all for the quick replies. Ben's pointer to the Visuddhimagga was bang on. Vism. XVII:105'ish I think it was, although the only canonical reference seems to have come from the Patisambhidamagga.

Just to clarify, I take no real issue with this axiom, I was merely trying to establish whether it came right from the Blessed One.